10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly within their respective communities, as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. In this regard, it is fitting to quote the Separate Opinion of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources[64] on the constitutionality of Sections 63, 65 and other related provisions, like Section 15, of the IPRA: Anent the use of customary laws in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains, suffice it to say that such is allowed under paragraph 2, Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution. Said provision states, "The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains." Notably, the use of customary laws under IPRA is not absolute, for the law speaks merely of primacy of use. xxx xxxx The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains, where all the parties involved are members of indigenous peoples, specifically, of the same indigenous group. It therefore follows that when one of the parties to a dispute is a nonmember of an indigenous group, or when the indigenous peoples involved belong to different groups, the application of customary layv is not required. Like any other law, the objective of IPRA in prescribing the primacy of customary law in disputes concerning ancestral lands and domains where all parties involved are indigenous peoples is justice. The utilization of customary laws is in line with the constitutional policy of recogmzmg the application thereof through legislation passed by Congress. Furthermore, the recognition and use of customary law is not a novel idea in this jurisdiction. Under the Civil Code, use of customary law is sanctioned, as long as it is proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence, and it is not contrary to law, public order or public policy. Moreover, the Local Government Code of 1991 calls for the recognition and application of customary laws to the resolution of issues involving members of indigenous peoples. This law admits the operation of customary laws in the settling of disputes if such are ordinarily used in barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous peoples.[65] Likewise, unavailing is petitioners' contention that unresolved claims and disputes between different ICCs/IPs groups, and those between ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs should fall under the jurisdiction of the NCIP. In this regard, the Court shares the view of Justice Perez: That the proviso found in Section 66 of the IPRA is exclusionary, specifically excluding disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs where the opposing party is non-ICC/IP, is reflected in the IPRA's emphasis of customs and customary law to govern in the lives of the ICCs/IPs. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 20/32